Best route for the Soviet Union?

[unmerged(3168)]

Originally posted by Upham

Humm...I didn't think that a longer barrell, in and of itself, did much. It should make the round more accurate, but I don't see how it changes much else.

Just for the record here are the penetration of the Tiger and King Tiger type guns using APCBC ammo on a 30 deg angle at ranges of 500 and 1000 meters.

88L56 (Tiger).......110mm 101mm
88L71 (KTiger).....182mm 167mm

The souce is the from 'Fire and movement' from the Bovington tank meseum in the UK.

 

[unmerged(5987)]

Originally posted by vertinox
Otherwise, the Armor breakthrough idea only works when you attack the weakest points

That, and when you outnumber the enemy 29 to 1 and simply seek to cut off his lines of supply.

 

[unmerged(10880)]

Remember also that the Tiger and Pather were designed with very different characteristics and production methods in mind.

Germany built tanks as heavy equipment and a lot of companies involved in their production also built things such as locomotives, train cars and construction equipment. In general this equipment requires similar equipment and skills to manufacture, but they are not typically produced in vast numbers. Germany essentially took people who could build heavy equipment (and all thier techniques and processes) and tried to get them to produce the equipment in large numbers.

The end result were ultimately heavier, more complex, higher performing tanks, which had difficulty being produced in large numbers. Individual vehicles tended to be more unique as well, parts could not always be easily swapped from Tiger to Tiger.

The US instead approached the automobile industry, which had considerable experience in producing vast numbers of cars, and used thier techniques and processes to build heavier equipment.

The result here was an OK tank, with some drawbacks, but produced by the tens of thousands. With each stamped out cookie cutter style, parts could almost always be easily swapped in the field.

Was a Tiger better than a Sherman, by a significant degree, but when you have 10 Shermans to every Tiger its not quite as clear cut.

 

[unmerged(10352)]

Spotticus, That is facinating story of the 'paths' 2 nations took and how affect their MBT. Obviously the Soviets should pick the US path. (they got people/resources and the "German Path" failed in WWII.

----

It's not very 'correct' or historical to be comparing sherman to tigers or panthers.

Shermans weren't meant and weren't used to combat hvy armor. Of course, it happened.

The TD's (Hellcats, Fireflys, later Jacksons) and ATG's were the tank killers.

The US decided to go speed and tactics instead of massive armor and guns. See Soviet Union for big guns and think armor.

Compare Shermans to StuGs and Pz III-IV, US didn't produce a 'hvy' tank until Pershing.


Shermans also were improved during the war and came in many varients

Later versions had 76mm gun w/ tungsten rounds (which the allies had 'enough' of) could penetrate 130-180mm or armor at 1000m over 200 at 500m

Sherman Jumbo had a a riduculous amount of extra armor welded on it.

Sherman HVSS the 'easy 8' was great cross-country.

whoops so off topic i'm ashamed

 

[Petrarca]

IIRC the Pershing took up the allotment for two Shermans on the convoy ships (whether weight or size I don't know)...

 

[unmerged(3168)]

Originally posted by Spotticus
Remember also that the Tiger and Pather were designed with very different characteristics and production methods in mind.

Germany built tanks as heavy equipment and a lot of companies involved in their production also built things such as locomotives, train cars and construction equipment. In general this equipment requires similar equipment and skills to manufacture, but they are not typically produced in vast numbers. Germany essentially took people who could build heavy equipment (and all thier techniques and processes) and tried to get them to produce the equipment in large numbers.

[snip]
The US instead approached the automobile industry, which had considerable experience in producing vast numbers of cars, and used thier techniques and processes to build heavier equipment.

Umm sounds like you've got a production doctrine right there Spotticus well done

 

[Aetius]

Originally posted by robothelpermnky
I wonder how easy it will be for the USSR to get into treaties such as Gurranteeing independence of Poland. France, Denmark.

I also wonder how much that might deter Germany. I sure would think long and hard invading Poland if there was a chance of being at war with France, UK, USSR in 1939. yikes!

Both the Soviets and the Germans had anti-aggression treaties with Poland in 1936, shows how useful they turned out to be

 

[unmerged(5987)]

Originally posted by Aetius


Both the Soviets and the Germans had anti-aggression treaties with Poland in 1936, shows how useful they turned out to be

True, but the Soviet/Japanese non-aggression pact probably saved the USSR from defeat, and it saved the Japanese from facing Soviet occupation after the war!

 

[unmerged(4953)]

A lesser known fact is that France and Britain were readying forces to send to the aid of Finland, but the units were sent to Norway when that country was invaded by Germany. If the Aid had been sent, a wider conficlt between Russia and the Allies would probably have developed.

Actualy this is a mis-interpiration of facts.
Churchill didnt want Swedish Ore going to Germany. So he preposed to send troops to 'assist' Finland. Infact those troops were to occupy Swedish Iron Ore fields.

 

[unmerged(9214)]

Originally posted by Kiith

Just for the record here are the penetration of the Tiger and King Tiger type guns using APCBC ammo on a 30 deg angle at ranges of 500 and 1000 meters.

88L56 (Tiger).......110mm 101mm
88L71 (KTiger).....182mm 167mm

The souce is the from 'Fire and movement' from the Bovington tank meseum in the UK.

Good statistics. It´s always very important to include the barrel length when comparing gun performance. The numbers '56' and '71' indicate how long the barrel is in caliber units, which in this case in 88 mm. So Tiger I had a 4,93 m barrel while Tiger II had 6,25 m. Quite a difference.

I think that the ISU-122 and ISU-152 that were mentioned earlier should not be compared to Panthers and Tigers, since they were designed for somewhat different purposes (and a Panther vs. ISU-152 fight would be cakewalk to the big cat). SU-85 and SU-100 were more of "tank killers" and ISU-122 and ISU-152 more for direct fire support.

The combat performance of inividual tank cannot be reduced to caliber and armor thickness comparison. Speed, optics, ammo quality etc. (even ergonomics) must be taken into account as well.

Even more complex is the evaluation of a tank design as part of the grand strategic scheme.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Sorry to diverge from the discussion on tanks, but someone had suggested that as the USSR he would invade China. I'm not so sure that's a wise move.

Sure, China would give the USSR a lot of resources and manpower. But the USSR already has tons of resources and manpower. There's no shortage there. What the USSR needed was more industry, and you're not going to find that in China. Instead, you're goingto have dozens of divisions tied down trying to occupy China. Look how much trouble the Japanese had.

Personally, I like the idea of a pre-emptive strike on German, and an attack on Japan. As for Finland, I would probably go for it as well - have to re-unite the old Tsarist empire after all!

 

[AlanC9]

Originally posted by Energizer
Even more complex is the evaluation of a tank design as part of the grand strategic scheme.

And tactical doctrine too. Gun caliber and armor thickness were often secondary to the "soft" factors; the Soviets were really weak in this area early in the war, which explains how the Germans did so much with their inferior equipment. Of course, the Soviets learned quickly.

 

[unmerged(1972)]

Well, to reach Germany you'd first have to take Poland. I guess if you are speaking post 1939, it might be viable. I think they were in the planning stages for an invasion anyway, so it's not very ahistorical.

As for Germany treating the Russian territories better, that's arguable. I think the Cossacks saw themselves as being liberated, but in a lot of places the Germans mass executed or displaced a lot of people, just as the Soviets did.

 

[Ming]

Originally posted by ZheShiWO

Actualy this is a mis-interpiration of facts.
Churchill didnt want Swedish Ore going to Germany. So he preposed to send troops to 'assist' Finland. Infact those troops were to occupy Swedish Iron Ore fields.

Absolutely true. However, it's not so much a misinterpretation as it is 'strategy'. The Aid to Finland was an excuse to send Allied troops to the theater (the plan was to secure Narvik and Northern Sweden to 'guarantee supply' after gaining permission from Sweden and Norway. ) however, Allied troops would have been committed against Russian. The ore was a bonus. (Or if you prefer, resisting Russian agression was the bonus.)

 

[unmerged(1095)]

Right - this thread has been severly prunned.
Probably a few decent posts went in the prunning but thats tough!

Please keep to the thread subject and do not hijack.
As for PC - If you think someone has posted something "slanderous" or "hurtful" then please send a PM to a Moderator. Do not enter into an argument about it yourself.

Thank you for your attention

 

[SideshowBob]

The Soviet armed forces in 1939 are in a terrible state, to bring the two paths which this thread has divulged into together we should start talking about how good as a tank the BT-7, T-26, or T-35 were. Most Soviet armour in 1939 was old fashioned and not really very good at all, only the KV-1 could be considered an OK tank and that was very slow. All these ideas of pre-emptive strikes and invading China should, if the game is designed right, be nothing more than pipe dreams.

Your best tactic as the Soviets is to try and stay out of the war for as long as possible while you desperately try to modernise and properly equip your army.

 

[unmerged(3168)]

Originally posted by SideshowBob
Your best tactic as the Soviets is to try and stay out of the war for as long as possible while you desperately try to modernise and properly equip your army.

This was pretty much what happened historically but the Germanys got the first punch in. It might also be worth remembering that if the Spanish CW does happen the Soviets will get a great chance to put some of their units/equipment into battle. IMHO they had some great tanks and aircraft in 1936.

I think if the soviets can get involved in the Spanish CW and doing so benefits your military that's the path I'll be taking.

 

[unmerged(5067)]

When I play Russia, I'll attack Romania first. After that, where can the Germans get their oil from?

 

[Ming]

Originally posted by Samourai Steven
When I play Russia, I'll attack Romania first. After that, where can the Germans get their oil from?

They'll just have to take it back.

I think Romania will be one of the more interesting Nations to play. Caught between the Devil and the Deep Red Sea.

I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Petrarca]

Originally posted by Ming


They'll just have to take it back.

I think Romania will be one of the more interesting Nations to play. Caught between the Devil and the Deep Red Sea.

I'm looking forward to it.

This razes an interesting question: Can we conduct scorched-earth policies to prevent the enemy from gaining the full use of captured provinces? Setting the oil wells afire and destroying the refineries in Romania would be a good idea if Germany attacked. Saddam's actions in Kuwait would have destroyed that nation's production if Red Adair and the other Texans hadn't come in.